Any way you look at it, nuclear energy is path to take

What they think

November 24, 2008|By Carey Baker, Special to the sentinel

Wall Street's unraveling underscores the unnecessary risks we take when we focus on the short term versus the long term. It seems that our financial sector perpetuated a cycle of irresponsible behavior. We must be far more responsible with our energy future.

By the year 2030, the U.S. will require 25 percent more electricity to meet growing consumer demand. Investing in emissions-free nuclear energy now is one thoughtful and responsible way to meet that demand, and to take our energy future into our own hands.

The trouble is that some people can't see past the short term when it comes to vital infrastructure investment. They argue that the cost of building new nuclear reactors in Florida is too high. They would have us scuttle plans for new reactors proposed by Florida Power & Light (FP&L) and Progress Energy Florida.

Indeed, the initial construction of a nuclear power plant is expensive. But it's comparably priced on a per-megawatt basis to a new wind project proposed off the New Jersey coast, and it is a better deal than paying volatile oil and gas prices and sending those profits and jobs into foreign hands.

Moreover, initial nuclear construction costs have a high payoff. Of all the base-load forms of energy, nuclear has the lowest operating cost, which is the best way to measure the long-term cost effectiveness of energy investments.

In 2007, U.S. utilities spent an average of only 1.76 cents to produce each kilowatt hour of electricity from nuclear energy. By comparison, it cost 6.78 cents for each kilowatt hour from natural gas-fueled power plants and 10.26 cents for the few oil-burning power plants that remain on the grid.

And because nuclear plants refuel only every 18 to 24 months, they are not subjected to the fuel-price volatility of the natural gas, oil and coal markets.

But perhaps the most valuable payoff for nuclear construction costs can't be measured by dollars and cents. It's our environment. Nuclear-power production emits no air pollutants and no greenhouse gases.

Last year, Florida's five reactors prevented 21 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions from entering the atmosphere. Nationally, 104 reactors prevent as much carbon dioxide in the electricity sector as produced by 96 percent of all passenger cars in America.

What price tag do you put on clean air? When opponents speak about nuclear construction costs, we must also ask, "What is the cost of not investing in our environment?"

Both presidential candidates saw the wisdom of nuclear energy. And both support a cap on carbon-dioxide production with a price-per-ton assessment on entities that exceed the cap.

Under a system that prices carbon dioxide at $45 per metric ton, "nuclear energy would most likely become a more attractive investment for new capacity than fossil-fuel generation," the Congressional Budget Office concluded in a May report on nuclear power.

At that market price, Florida's nuclear reactors would save rate-payers almost $1 billion a year in environmental costs -- costs that would otherwise have to be paid by Florida families and businesses.

New reactors also will lift our state and local economies. As many as 4,000 construction, engineering and project management jobs need to be filled during peak periods at new reactors, according to a new report by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), co-chaired by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, and former New Jersey governor and EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman.

These are high-wage "green" jobs -- often starting at $65,000 and up -- and they are free from the threat of offshore competition.

For long-term economic and environmental benefits, Floridians are wise to invest in nuclear energy.